Tabs

How can voters make an informed decision when they don’t know what they’re voting for? That was the question behind the Planning Commission’s 6-1 vote recommending that the City Council NOT approve placing The Oaks/Shea Homes Open Space “land swap” on the ballot in November. The Council is set to decide the issue on Tuesday, July 17.

To provide some background; The Oaks property owned in principal by Joan Irvine-Smith has asked for a General Plan Amendment (“GPA”) to swap some of her land currently zoned “Open Space Recreational” with an adjacent parcel zoned for “Residential” development. Voter-approved Measure X gave San Juan voters the right to decide whether Open Space can be re-zoned for development purposes. Thus the proposed developer, Shea Homes, and Ms. Irvine-Smith are requesting that the Council approve placing this issue before the voters in November.

We support the right of property owners to develop their property within what the law allows, but the Planning Commission has recommended that more information be provided and questions be answered before moving for a GPA and re-zone vote.

Several Planning Commissioners expressed concern about this deal being rushed to the ballot before issues have been addressed. Why the rush? The only reason we can see is to save the developer from having to pay for a special election. If the issue is put on the November General Election ballot, taxpayers pick up the associated costs which include paying our City Attorney to write an analysis and ballot label. The deadline is looming to qualify for the November ballot, so the developer wants to fast-track the planning process. But why shortchange the voters to save the developer money?

Some of the concerns raised by the Planning Commission include:
- The developer has not yet presented a formal development plan for consideration. Therefore, we don’t know the number of homes being proposed on the Open Space parcel. 28 - 35 seems to be the targeted range.

- How will the increased traffic load impact access to and from Ortega Highway? Will a traffic signal be required? If so, who will pay for it?

No traffic study has yet been conducted and no plan for access to the proposed Gated Community was presented.

- Will this Gated Community limit public access to the “new” Open Space, effectively privatizing it? What are the plans for public access, if any?

- What impacts will this Gated Community have on existing horse trails and the protected San Juan Creek?

- Who will maintain the setbacks along San Juan Creek as required by law? No agreement has been negotiated for landscaping and maintaining the setbacks.

- Residents in Mission Springs who bought their homes prior to development of The Oaks paid a premium for Open Space views with the expectation that their views would be preserved. The design features of the proposed homes are unknown. How will they impact the views of neighboring residences and their property values?

San Juan voters deserve to have this issue properly vetted before the Council gives the green light for the developer to use their considerable resources to persuade voters to approve their plan.

No comments:

Current Issue

Click to read issue online

Welcome to the Community Common Sense!

The CCS is a non-partisan community watchdog publication distributed to homes and businesses in the city of San Juan Capistrano.

The CCS was established in San Juan Capistrano in 2009 by a group of residents who recognized that our money was often spent in ways that enriched a select few, while residents were left with the resulting increases to cost of living, traffic and debt.

We believe knowledge is power. Aided by Public Records Act requests for information and extensive research, we print fact-based information about these and other issues which enables residents to make educated decisions about local leadership. We do the homework – you decide!

Follow us on Twitter!

Community Specifics

OC Register on Capistrano

Subscribe!

Translate

Capistrano City Hall Compensation

With high unemployment levels and with our City's debt at over $100 million, reigning in City costs is more important than ever. In a recent CCS article, we published a detailed list of City Hall compensation and benefit expenses by position and employee. You can view the details yourself and decide whether you think this is a good use of scarce taxpayer dollars.